RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/79  
 
2 December  2022 
(22-8994) Page: 1/10 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 13  OCTOBER  2022  
CHAIRPERSON: MS  LAURA GAUER (SWITZERLAND)  
Subjects discussed  
 
1   PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/917 
AND WT/L/917/ADD.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 
1.1   Review of Recent Developments in Relation to Preferential Rules of Origin for Leas t 
Developed Countries (LDCs): Report by Preference -Granting Members Wishing to Share any 
Developments  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  2 
1.2   Preliminary Assessme nt of the Revised Preferential Rules of Origin of the United Kingdom – 
Submission by the LDC  Group (G/RO/W/216)  ................................ ................................ ....... 2 
1.3   Notifications of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs and Preferential Import Data  ...............  2 
1.3.1   Notification from Thailand (G/RO/LDC/N/THA/1/Rev.1)  ................................ ................  2 
1.3.2   Notification from Japan (G/RO/LDC/N/JPN/1/Rev.1 and Corr.1)  ................................ ..... 3 
1.3.3   Report by the Secretariat (G/RO/W/163/Rev.10)  ................................ .........................  3 
1.4   Proofs of Origin (Origin Certification) and the Utilization of Trade Preferences by Least 
Developed Countries (G/RO/W/212) – Note by the Secretariat  ................................ ................  4 
1.5   Committee Decision on Preferential Rules of Origin and the Implementation of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decis ion (G/RO/95) and Outcome Document of the 12th Ministerial Conference 
(Paragraph  8 of Document  WT/L/1135) – Statement by the Chairperson  ................................ ... 6 
1.6   Draft Report (2022) of the CRO to the General Council on Preferential Rules of Origin for 
LDCs (G/RO/W/213)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  7 
2   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/239 TO G/RO/N/245)  ..............................  7 
3   DRAFT TRANSPARENCY DECISION ON NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN 
(G/RO/W/182/REV.4) – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ..........  7 
4   TWENTY -EIGHTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF 
THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/W/214)  ................................ ..................  8 
5   DRAFT REPORT (2022) OF THE CRO TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/RO/W/215)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  9 
6   DATES OF THE COMMITTEE'S NEXT MEETINGS  ................................ ............................  9 
7   APPOINTMENT OF VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
8   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
_______________  
 
 
The Committee on Rules  of Origin (hereafter "the Committee", or "CRO") adopted  the agenda 
(WTO/AIR/RO/16). Delegations attended the meeting in person or remotely via the "Interprefy" 
platform.  
_______________  G/RO/M/79  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/917 AND 
WT/L/917/ADD.1)  
1.1  Review of Recent Developments in Relation to Preferential Rules of Origin for Least 
Developed Countries (LDCs): Report by Preference -Granting Members Wishing to Share 
any Developments  
1.1.  The Chairperson  reminded delegations that the Bali and the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions had 
instructed the CRO to monitor preference -granting Members' efforts to implement both Decisions. 
In this regard, she invited preference -granting Members to inform the Committee of  any recent 
developments in this area.  
1.2.  The representative of Thailand  informed Members that his government had renewed the 
Duty-Free Quota -Free Scheme (DFQF) for Least  Developed Countries. The rules of origin that applied 
under the new scheme had already b een notified to the Committee ( G/RO/LDC/N/THA/1/Rev.1 ). 
The scheme would be in force from 17  November  2021 to 31  December  2026 and allow ed 46 LDCs 
to trade under a preferential rate. In total, 7,535  products would be exempted from duties and 
quotas, accounting for 65.99% of Thailand's eight -digit tariff lines (1,436  agricultural products and 
6,099  non-agricultural products).  
1.3.  The representative of th e United Kingdom  (UK) informed the CRO that his government had 
successfully launched the Developing Countries Trading Scheme (DCTS), which replaced the UK's 
Generalized Scheme of Preferences. The intention was to make the new scheme effective from the 
beginning of 2023. The design of the new scheme had taken into account comments made during 
an online public consultation. It had also been guided by the provisions of the Nairobi Decision. 
He noted that the applicable preferential rules of origin had been des igned in a way to be simpler 
and more generous. The Product -Specific Rules (PSRs) had been significantly simplified. 
The provisions on cumulation had been relaxed , allowing LDCs greater flexibility to source inputs 
from 95  countries. The details had been p ublished on the UK  government website ( www.gov.uk ). 
In addition, he invited interested Members to attend an information session taking place immediately 
following the Committee's meeting, which had been organized by the UK  delegation.  
1.4.  The representative of the United States  (US) informed Members that his delegation had 
organized a panel on "How can exporting countries improve utilization of US  Trade Preference 
Programs?" during the 2022  Aid for Trade Global Review. The sess ion had explored certain issues 
related to the utilization of preferential rules of origin for various products, including textiles and 
manufactured goods. The panel discussion had been recorded and could be consulted online . 
1.5.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
1.2  Preliminary Assessment of the Revised Preferential Rules of Origin of the United 
Kingdom – Submission by the LDC  Group (G/RO/W/216)  
1.6.  The representative of Bangladesh  welcomed the United Kingdom's effort s to consult with 
Members regarding the revision of its preferential rules of origin and thanked the UK  government 
for considering the guidelines provided by the Nairobi Decision in its reform process.  
1.7.  The representative of the United Kingdom  welcomed the p reliminary examination of the UK's 
Developing Countries Trading Scheme by the LDC  Group and took note of the Group's intention to 
undertake a full assessment of the final DCTS  legislation. He also welcomed the LDCs' 
acknowledgement that the UK's new scheme  had accommodated elements of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Decision and set an example for other preference -granting Members.  
1.8.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
1.3  Notifications of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDC s and Preferential Import Data 
1.3.1   Notification from Thailand (G/RO/LDC/N/THA/1/R ev.1) 
1.9.  The representative of Senegal  thanked Thailand for its revised notification but noted that a 
website link for the legislation on substantial transformation criteria was missing. He also noted that G/RO/M/79  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Thailand had allowed beneficiary LDCs to use an ad valorem  percentage criterion to determine 
substantial transformation. However, in light of the capacity const raints experienced by most LDCs, 
he encouraged Thailand to allow for the use of non -originating materials up to 75% of the final value 
of a good , as prescribed by the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions. Furthermore, he considered 
that the notification provide d insufficient information regarding the PSRs; for this reason , he invited 
Thailand to clarify whether the requirements included  such rules. He also referred to paragraph  1.5 
of the Nairobi Decision and  encouraged Thailand to make its requirements m ore flexible  by allowing 
for a change of tariff classification criterion as an alternative way of establishing substantial 
transformation. Lastly, he invited Thailand to introduce bilateral cumulation under its preferential 
scheme to promote greater bilate ral trade between LDCs and Thailand.  
1.10.  The representative of Thailand  welcomed Senegal's comments and suggestions and said that 
his delegation stood ready to discuss these comments bilaterally with the LDC  Group.  
1.11.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
1.3.2   Notification from Japan (G/RO/LDC/N/JPN/1/R ev.1 and C orr.1) 
1.12.  The representative of Senegal  thanked Japan for its revised notification . Nevertheless, he 
invited Japan to add the correct references to the notification so that LDCs cou ld consult the 
respective legislation . In addition, he noted that Japan had not indicated the list of product -specific 
rules and the relevant maximum allowed percentage of non -originating materials. The document 
referenced in the notification did not conta in such a list (WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.18). For these reasons, 
he asked Japan to clarify its notification and the applicable product -specific rules.  
1.13.  The representative of Japan  thanked Senegal for its comments. Japan had introduced special 
preferential tariff tr eatment for LDCs as a temporary measure , with an application period of 
ten years ; however, Japan had now extended the validity of the scheme until March  2031. Similarly, 
his delegation would engage in the discussions on how to support the economic developm ent of 
developing countries and LDCs.  
1.14.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
1.3.3   Report by the Secretariat (G/RO/W/163/R ev.10) 
1.15.  The Secretariat  (Mr Simon Neumueller) updated the Committee on the latest developments 
regarding the submission of notificat ions covering preferential import data for LDCs in accordance 
with the Transparency Mechanism for Preferential Trade Arrangements. He noted that additional 
data had been received from a number of preference -granting Members since April 2022, when the 
Secre tariat had previously updated the CRO. He noted, however, that import, and in certain cases, 
tariff data for 2020 was missing for Armenia ; Kazakhstan ; the Kyrgyz Republic ; Montenegro ; 
Morocco ; New Zealand ; Norway ; the Russian Federation ; Tajikistan ; and Thailand. In addition, he 
underscored the importance of complete submissions, meaning notifications covering imports from 
LDCs under both non -reciprocal trade preferences and Regional Trade Agreements (RTA s). He 
explained that an absence of trade data concerning RTAs could lead to the possibly incorrect 
conclusion that exporters not using a non -reciprocal trade arrangement had necessarily paid 
MFN duties, when in reality they could have received tariff preferences un der other schemes. For a 
complete analysis of utilization rates, the Secretariat needed to receive the relevant data concerning 
all of the following: LDC preferential tariffs; preference -eligible trade; imports under 
LDC preferences; trade under  other pref erences (such as RTAs, and corresponding tariffs); and trade 
entering on an MFN basis. 
1.16.  The representative of India thanked the Secretariat for its explanation and agreed that the 
lack of relevant information could lead to an overestimation of the underutil ization of preferences. 
He also suggested that the Secretariat should consider trade in tariff lines with a zero  MFN rate. 
1.17.  The Secretariat  (Mr Simon Neumueller) clarified that the WTO's methodology and calculations 
did not include the MFN  zero-rated tariff  lines because no preference could be offered for those lines 
(hence no utilization of preferences was possible). However, these lines were indeed relevant in 
analysing the overall patterns of trade between LDCs and preference -granting Members.  G/RO/M/79  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.18.  The Chairpe rson requested delegations that had not yet submitted all the necessary 
information to prepare their notifications as soon as possible and, if necessary, to seek the assistance 
of the Secretariat.  
1.19.  The Committee took note  of the report and statements made.  
1.4  Proofs of Origin ( Origin Certification) and the Utilization of Trade Preferences by 
Least Developed Countries (G/RO/W/212) – Note by the Secretariat  
1.20.  The Secretariat  (Mr Darlan Martí) presented the Secretariat's most recent note on the 
utilization of trade  preferences by LDCs (G/RO/W/212). He explained that the note focused on the 
impact of certification obligations on the ability of LDCs to utilize trade preferences. He recalled that 
the Bali Ministerial Decision encouraged preference -granting Members to allow self -certification 
whenever possible. Similarly, the Nairobi Decision encouraged preference -granting Members to 
consider measures to further streamline customs procedures, such as minimizing documentation 
requirements for small consignments or allowin g for self -certification. Hence, both Decisions built on 
the premises that a reduction of the administrative burden associated with origin -related 
documentary and procedural obligations would help the LDCs to better utilize their trade preferences. 
The note by the Secretariat  tried to explore such linkages.  
1.21.  He recalled the two  main types of proofs of origin: third -party certification and 
self-certification. In the case of third -party certification, the compliance with specific origin criteria 
had to be atte sted by a designated authority by means of a certificate of origin. Third -party 
certification required economic operators to deal with the paperwork associated with the application 
for certificates. As such, it could entail costs and delays. However, certi ficates issued by third  parties 
were reliable, thereby increasing the predictability of business operations. In the case of 
self-certification, economic operators carried the full responsibility for attesting the origin of goods 
by means of a statement or declaration of origin. In this sense, self -certification removed the 
administrative burden associated with the application process and could thus constitute a 
trade-facilitating alternative. However, this approach required economic operators to have attain ed 
a sufficient level of expertise in order to be able to identify, interpret , and apply the relevant rules 
of origin.  
1.22.  In relation to approaches to proving origin, he also highlighted that the note contained 
examples of national reforms aimed at facilitati ng the certification process. These initiatives included 
the use of electronic certification and, in a few cases, blockchain technology. He suggested that the 
CRO could be used as a platform for greater information and experience -sharing on the subject of 
paperless trade and other innovative trade facilitation projects.  
1.23.  With a view to testing the trade facilitative effect of self -certification, the Secretariat had 
established two  groups of preferential arrangements : first, Group  1, containing the schemes that 
allowed for self -certification ; and second, Group  2, with the schemes that required a third -party 
certificate of origin. The average underutilization rate for Members allowing self -certification was 
22%, while the average under utilization for Members requiring certificates of origin was higher, at 
49%. The same pattern was found in relation to agricultural products: the underutilization rates for 
Members allowing self -certification in this sector were lower (17%) than for Member s requiring 
third-party certification (50%). However, he cautioned against drawing any general conclusions  
because there could be different patterns for some Members and limitations in the data could also 
influence the results.  
1.24.  Finally, the note acknowledg ed that certification requirements also entailed compliance with 
procedures imposed by institutions in the exporting country ( that is,  procedures put in place by the 
authorities  of LDCs for the issuance of third -party certificates of origin ). Due to insuff icient 
information, it was not possible to categorize the practices of LDCs in this respect. However, the 
Secretariat had used the OECD  Trade Facilitation Indicators and associated such indicators with the 
utilization rates of individual LDCs. The calculat ions had shown that LDCs with better trade facilitation 
scores tended to show lower underutilization rates, even though this was not a universal pattern.  
1.25.  The representative of Canada  clarified that, in contrast to the indication in the note, Canada 
did not  require third -party certification for any goods, including textiles and clothing. For the textiles 
and clothing sector, economic operators could self -declare the origin of goods but needed to do so G/RO/M/79  
 
- 5 - 
 
  by using a specified template (called a certificate of or igin). Her delegation had conveyed this 
information to the Secretariat and requested the note to be revised accordingly.  
1.26.  The representative of the United States  noted that the trading community reported import or 
export operations through the United States ' Automated Commercial Environment (ACE  System), 
and the government determined the admissibility of the goods. Importers could select the special 
programme indicator electronically in order to claim preferences. He stated that his delegation stood 
ready to  provide the Secretariat with additional information regarding the United States' practices.  
1.27.  The Delegate of China  asked the Secretariat to reflect the method of calculation of 
underutilization rates in the note. He pointed out that China had been categori zed as falling into 
Group  2 (Members requiring a third -party certificate of origin) , whereas China did allow for 
self-certification  under certain specific circumstances. For example, economic operators could 
self-declare the origin of goods whenever the goods had been the object of an advance ruling. He 
requested the Secretariat to adjust the note in this respect.  
1.28.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  drew Members' attention to the Secretariat's conclusions 
that the  findings of the note should be interpreted carefully because of certain limitations in the 
methodology and data used , as well as the difficulties in isolating the impact of origin certification 
from other factors. Self -certification seemed to have a trade -facilitating impact although not for all 
non-reciprocal preferences for LDCs. She underlined that Chinese Taipei continued to work to 
simplify customs clearance procedures and accept third -party certificates issued not only by the 
LDC authorities, but als o by their authorized agents. Chinese Taipei did not currently implement a 
self-certification regime but stood ready to provide further clarification to LDCs , as needed. As such, 
Chinese Taipei's practices were fully compatible with the Ministerial Decisio ns. 
1.29.  The representative of the European Union  noted that certain conclusions in the Secretariat's 
note needed confirmation, especially regarding the REX  system. In this regard, the EU wished to 
further analyse the note and provide more detailed comments at a later stage. As a preliminary 
comment, she noted that the EU had very clearly observed the benefits of self -certification. The EU 
had made great efforts to improve the utilization rate of its preferences and hoped that more 
Members would move towards thi s method of certifying origin. Furthermore, she agreed that 
paperless certification and use of blockchain could further facilitate preference utilization. 
She reported that the EU was also moving in this direction but noted that there were still many 
challenges, in particular the use of blockchain , which  was still at an early testing phase. She also 
clarified that the EU did not use electronic certificates of origin since all the certification process was 
based on self -certification. She said that the statements on origin could already be submitted 
electronically, which greatly facilitated trade. As had been pointed out by the Secretariat, she agreed 
that it was very difficult to isolate the impact of certification of origin from any other factors that 
affected the utilization of trade preferences. She also agreed that the efficiency of the exporting 
party's administration played a key role. In this respect, she added that the exporting country 
administration 's capacity played a significant role, in particula r when the importing country made a 
request for the verification of the origin of certain goods. For these reasons, she considered that a  
proper customs cooperation was required between the administrations of the importing and the 
exporting party. In fact,  preferences would be denied if the exporting party did not reply promptly 
to a request for origin verification. In this regard, the EU had seen cases in which a lack of capacity 
to conduct origin verification had impacted negatively upon the ability of so me beneficiaries to utilize 
trade preferences.  
1.30.  The representative of the United Kingdom  commented that his government was interested in 
knowing more about barriers being faced by LDCs in relation to certification. He added that his 
delegation stood ready to contribute to future discussions regarding best practices.  
1.31.  The delegate of India agreed with the Secretariat's view that more complete datasets could 
alter the results of the calculations  presented in the note. As pointed out by the Secretariat, 
preferences under reciprocal trade agreements (free trade agreements) had not always been 
considered for a lack of complete data. Indeed, a lack of data also affected the calculations for his 
country. In fact, several LDCs traded with India under free trade  agreements , so utilization rates 
should have been higher. He reiterated that India was committed to providing effective market 
access to LDCs . India also remained committed to the Hong Kong and Bali Ministerial Decisions.  G/RO/M/79  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.32.  The representative of Switzerland  stated that the Secretariat 's note  raised questions that were 
relevant to both preferential and non -preferential rules of origin. For this reason, he encouraged 
Members to comment on the note in order to improve its qualit y. Several factors seemed to have 
an effect on underutilization rates, but the note was a first  attempt to focus on certification practices  
in particular . He wondered if the Secretariat could develop an econometric analysis in order to test 
the statistical  significance of each of the variables. Finally, he noted that best practices identified in 
this area by the CRO would also be beneficial for other Committees, such as the Informal Working 
Group on MSMEs.  
1.33.  The representative of Senegal  noted that certain Af rican countries had been implementing 
reforms to allow for the self -certification of origin as a way of simplifying trade procedures and 
encouraging better preference utilization. He encouraged Members to move towards self -certification 
and to consider oth er reforms aimed at simplifying  documentary requirements.  
1.34.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  noted that its relevant agencies in capital were 
still examining the note and that his delegation would reach out to the Secretariat in due course.  
1.35.  The re presentative of UNCTAD  (Mr Stefano Inama) indicated the need for further research on 
the nexus between certification of origin, preference utilization , and trade facilitation. He informed 
the Committee that UNCTAD had been developing analysis regarding the  certification and proofs of 
origin with the aim of identifying best practices. As pointed out by the Secretariat, no best practice 
had currently been agreed ; nevertheless, there was a real demand for best practices and guidance 
in this area. In this regar d, UNCTAD had been developing research in collaboration with the Asian 
Development Bank and  intended to conduct a joint survey with private sector representatives on 
their experiences of using different certification methods.  
1.36.  The Secretariat  (Mr Darlan Mart í) thanked Members for their interest and valuable comments. 
He confirmed that the Secretariat's calculations did not consider tariff lines with a zero  MFN rate 
(since there could be no preference on such lines). He also confirmed that the calcu lations would be 
revised if Members submitted additional data to the Secretariat. Indeed, he underscored that the 
note was a first  draft that would be revised in light of Members'  corrections and comments.  
1.37.  The Committee took note  of the presentation and st atements made.  
1.5  Committee Decision on Preferential Rules of Origin and the Implementation of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision (G/RO/95) and Outcome Document of the 12th Ministerial 
Conference ( Paragraph  8 of Document  WT/L/1135) – Statement by the Chairperso n 
1.38.  The Chairperson  recalled that the LDC  Group had requested the CRO to discuss a paragraph 
taking stock of the status of implementation of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions , which had 
developed into a proposal that had led to a Committee Decision that was adopted in April  2022 
(G/RO/95). In addition, the Decision had been referred to in paragraph  8 of the Outcome Document 
of the 12th Ministerial Conference  (WT/L/1135) . In light of the new elements contained in the 
Decisi on and bearing  in mind the report to be prepared by the CRO ahead of MC13, she asked 
Members to share their views about the Committee 's work  in the months ahead.  
1.39.  The representative of the European Union  welcomed the work that had been carried out by 
the LD C Group to demonstrate where the improvements in rules of origin and administrative 
requirements should be made in order to fully implement the Nairobi Decision and increase the use 
of unilateral trade preferences offered by many WTO  Members to LDCs. The L DC Group had 
illustrated certain practices that could lead to better utilization, such as minimum paperwork, self -
certification, and rules of origin allowing LDCs to source inputs more flexibly. They had also pointed 
to the need to simplify the rules by li miting the restrictions and limitations to the rules and sourcing. 
However, she noted that certain preferences remained underutilized for reasons that were not 
always well understood. For its part, the EU had undertaken substantial reforms and implemented 
best practices in many respects but  acknowledged that there was still room for improvement as 
concerned the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 's full implementation . Given the great advances of recent  
years, the EU was not currently envisaging any further substa ntial changes to its system. 
She recalled that the MC12  document imposed an obligation to report to the General Council before 
MC13. In the EU's view, one  way to do so would be to prepare a compilation of the essence, 
conclusions , and recommendations that the LDC Group regarded as best practices. The CRO could G/RO/M/79  
 
- 7 - 
 
  then discuss how to report on such best practices , as well as on any other practices that Members 
could collectively identify . She noted that reaching agreement on such best practices would entail 
substantial discussions in the CRO , but that such discussions could already build on the rich 
contributions made to the CRO over the previous few years.  
1.40.  The representative of Bangladesh , on behalf of the LDC  Group, welcomed the Committee's 
Decision of 14  April 2022 (G/RO/95) and the reference made to it in the 12th Ministerial Conference 
outcome document  (WT/L/1135) . He said that both the Decision and the paragraph provided a new 
mandate to the CRO. He underlined that substantial progress had been achieved by building on 
previous LDC Group  communications (for example , document  G/RO/W/194 , on the 5th Anniversary 
of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision). The LDC  Group hoped that the Committee De cision would provide 
fresh momentum for major reforms of preferential rules of origin. He informed Members that the 
LDC Group had been working on a proposal for a work programme , which it would present to the 
Committee at a later stage.  
1.41.  The representative of Canada  welcomed the MC12  Outcome Document 's reference to the 
CRO's Decision and agreed with the EU's suggestion regarding the organization of the Committee's 
future work. She also mentioned that Canada was curious about how the Committee would leverage 
reporting requirements to the General Council in order to fulfil its MC12  requirements.  
1.42.  The representative of Switzerland  encouraged the LDC  Group to consult with Members well in 
advance of any reporting in order to organize the work of the Committee as so on as possible.  
1.43.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
1.6  Draft Report (2022) of the CRO to the General Council on Preferential Rules of Origin 
for LDC s (G/RO/W/213)  
1.44.  The Chairperson  recalled that the CRO was required to report annually to the General Council 
on recent developments regarding preferential rules of origin for LDCs and implementation of the 
Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions. To this end, the Secretariat had prepared  a draft report for 
Members' consideration (G/RO/W/213). She proposed to ask the Secretariat to update the draft 
report in light of the CRO's latest discussions before circulating it to Members for their examination. 
If no comments on the revised report we re received within a prescribed time -frame, the report would 
be considered to have been adopted.  
1.45.  The Committee adopted  the report through written procedures (G/RO/97).  
2  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULE S OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/239 TO G/RO/N/245)  
2.1.  The Chairperson  reported that new notifications had been received by the Secretariat , covering 
both preferential and non -preferential rules of origin  (G/RO/N/239; G/RO/N/240; G/RO/N/241; 
G/RO/N/242; G/RO/N/243; G/RO/N /244 and G/RO/N/245). Regarding the substance of these new 
notifications, she observed the following: 53  Members had notified the Secretariat that they applied 
non-preferential rules of origin (counting the EU and its member States as one); 62  Members had 
informed the Secretariat that they did not apply any non-preferential rules of origin; the remaining 
22 Members had not yet submitted a notification under Article  5 of the Agreement. The full list of 
notifications received, including outstanding notificati ons, was available in the Annex to 
document  G/RO/W/214.  
2.2.  The Committee took note  of the Chairperson's report.  
3  DRAFT TRANSPARENCY DECISION ON NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN 
(G/RO/W/182/REV.4) – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
3.1.  The Chairperson  referred to the d raft transparency decision on non -preferential rules of origin 
(G/RO/W/182/Rev.4) , and specifically the most recent consultations that had been held on it prior 
to MC12. She invited delegations to report on any progress made  since that time . In addition, she 
acknowledged the challenges that delegations faced in devoting the necessary time to this proposal 
amidst a large number of competing priorities. For this reason, she offered to play a more proactive G/RO/M/79  
 
- 8 - 
 
  role by holding consultations with a view to revising the text of the proposal if delegations considered 
such an approach to be useful . 
3.2.  The representative of Switzerland  reported that no additional consultations had taken place 
because delegations had been busy with MC12. By way of reminder, he recalled the objectives of 
the proposal, its nature, and its benefits , and noted that work on it had begun in 2016 -2017, building 
on the realization that the notifications on non -preferential rules of origin were outdated and 
incomplete. There was a sha red view among Members that better access to information about 
Members' non -preferential origin requirements would be beneficial for the global trading community 
and for the Committee's work itself. The subsequent notification template was not burdensome. 
Indeed, Article  5 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin already contained the notification obligation , 
such that the proposed template only guided delegations on how to prepare their notifications. 
He concluded by recalling that the proposal would make stand ardized information available to the 
Committee, thus equipping it to better discharge its monitoring functions.  
3.3.  The representative of the United States  noted that the TBT  Committee had adopted a 
notification template more than 20  years previously, and that  Members had been submitting several 
TBT notifications throughout each year. He said that revisions of non -preferential rules of origin were 
infrequent, thus Members applying non -preferential rules would possibly need to submit only 
one notification. He su pported the Chairperson's further engagement in the process.  
3.4.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  reiterated his delegation's support for the proposal and 
highlighted that the notification template would be helpful in promoting transparency and 
predictabil ity in non-preferential rules of origin. She supported the steps proposed by the 
Chairperson and encouraged Members to continue their dialogue in order to find common ground on 
the proposal as soon as possible.  
3.5.  The representative of India recalled that his  delegation had previously expressed concerns over 
certain aspects of the proposal. His delegation would be happy to engage in further discussions with 
a view to achieving a common understanding of the proposal.  
3.6.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  supported a more active engagement by the 
Chairperson.  
3.7.  The representative of Ecuador  recalled that his delegation had expressed reservations over 
paragraphs  4 and 8 of the proposal. He reiterated his delegation's willingness to engage in 
consultations to fine-tune the proposal.  
3.8.  The representative of Indonesia  considered that no substantial progress had been made 
regarding the provisions that had caused concern  among certain Members, including Indonesia. 
He recalled that Indonesia had proposed alternative language in May  2021. For transparency 
purposes, he requested the Chairperson regularly to update the Committee on her consultations.  
3.9.  The representative of the  European Union  welcomed the initiative to promote transparency in 
the area of non -preferential rules of origin, and believed that the proposal, particularly its 
paragraph  2, would lead to some but not full transparency. Her delegation would have preferred  a 
template that covered all areas of application of non -preferential rules of origin. Nevertheless, the 
EU would work pragmatically and supported more engagement by the Chairperson.  
3.10.  In conclusion, the Chairperson  confirmed that she would consult with delegations on specific 
aspects of the proposal with a view to preparing  a text  under her own responsibility as Chairperson . 
3.11.  The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
4  TWENTY -EIGHTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/W/214)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  recalled Article  6.1 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, which stated that 
"the Committee shall review annually the implementation and operation" of this Agreement and 
"annually inform the Council for Trade in Goods of developments". To help the Committee conduct 
this review, the Secretariat had prepared a background note describing the activities of the G/RO/M/79  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Committee under Parts  II and III of the Agreement (G/RO/W/214). She proposed to ask the 
Secretariat to finalize the  background note in light of the latest discussions in the Committee prior 
to send ing it to delegations for their adoption through written procedures.  
4.2.  The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly and concluded the 28th Review of the 
Implementation and Operation of the Agreement on Rules of Origin through written procedures 
(G/RO/96).  
5  DRAFT REPORT (2022) OF THE CRO TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/RO/W/215)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the CRO was required to submit a n annual  report on its activitie s 
to the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG). The draft report covering the activities of the Committee 
for 2022 had been circulated in document  G/RO/W/215. She proposed to ask the Secretariat to 
finalize the report in light of the latest discussions in the C ommittee prior to send ing it to delegations 
for their adoption through written procedures.  
5.2.  The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly and adopted  the report through written 
procedures (G/L/1440).  
6  DATES OF THE COMMITTEE 'S NEXT MEETINGS  
6.1.  The Chairperson  noted that the CRO's next formal meetings would take place on 11  May and 
12 October  2023.  
6.2.  The Committee took note  of the se dates.  
7  APPOINTMENT OF VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
7.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the election of a vice -chairperson had for many years been 
common practice in the CRO. However, that practice had since been discontinued, in part because 
the Committee had re -elected the same Chairperson for six consecutive years during the period of 
the Harmonization Work Programme. However, she noted that the Committee' s previous 
Chairperson  had been obliged to leave his post in Geneva unexpectedly and at short notice, thus 
leaving his position vacant. While he had succeeded in organizing the election of a vice-chairperson 
through written procedures  in the limited time available , she argued that Members could not assume 
that such a process would necessarily run as smoothly on a subsequent occasion . Given the 
attendant uncertainties  of such a situation , she reasoned that electing a vice-chairperson should 
therefore be considered good practice and proposed to this end to elect Mr  Angga Handian PUTRA 
of Indonesia as vice-chairperson of the Committee for 2022 -2023.  
7.2.  The delegation of the Russian Federation  explained that the proposed election was still bei ng 
considered by his colleagues in capital and that, as a result, he could not join the consensus on the 
proposed nomination. In addition, he recalled his delegation 's previously raised concerns , in the 
context of the General Council Chair person's  consulta tions, regarding the procedural aspects of 
elections of officers to WTO  bodies. These concerns involved, among other things, considerations on 
the transparency of the process , as well as the applicability of the whole procedure set by the 
guidelines in doc ument  WT/L/510 regarding the appointment of vice -chairpersons. Furthermore, he 
explained that rule  12 of the Rules of Procedure for meetings of the Committee on Rules of Origin 
provided that the Committee shall elect a chairperson and may elect a vice-chairperson . The election 
shall take place at the first meeting of the year and shall take effect at the end of the meeting. This 
language suggested that the election of both a chairperson and a vice-chairperson should take place 
simultaneously during the s pring meeting of the Committee. In this regard, he argued that the 
Committee had already missed the deadline stipulated by the Rules of Procedure for the election of 
a vice -chairperson. Finally, his delegation understood that the Chairperson was not necess arily 
planning to leave Geneva before the end of the term for which she had been appointed, meaning 
that there was no urgent need to elect another officer. Should such need arise, the new chairperson 
would be appointed as required by the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to WTO  bodies 
adopted by the General Council on 11  December  2002.  G/RO/M/79  
 
- 10 - 
 
  7.3.  The Chairperson  proposed to hold consultations with the Russian Federation and to update 
Members on any subsequent developments . 
7.4.  The Committee agreed  to proceed acco rdingly.  
8  OTHER BUSINESS  
8.1.  No items were raised under "Other Business".  
__________